I would support this at the right levels:
“If you think it’s a portfolio shift and you provide the extra money you’ve done exactly the right thing, but if you think it’s a portfolio shift and it turns out it was actually a demand shift, then you’ve done exactly the wrong thing,” he said. “It’s highly dangerous. If they get it right then there should be no effects on the economy at all, except Australia would be earning extra income off the reserves. But if it turns out we’ve got it wrong we could actually damage the economy.” The intervention could be done without a major impact on inflation and the printed money would not need to be “sterilised,” or offset by selling Australian bonds, he said.
Real-time, stream-of-consciousness insights on financial markets, economics, policy, housing, politics, and anything else that captures my interest. Tweet @cjoye
The author has been described by News Ltd as an "iconoclast", "Svengali", a pollie's "economist muse", and "pungently accurate". Fairfax says he is a "Renaissance man" and "one of Australia’s most respected analysts." Stephen Koukoulas concludes that he is "85% right", and "would make a great Opposition leader." Terry McCrann claims the author thinks "‘nuance’ is a trendy village in the south of France", but can be "scintillating" when he thinks "clearly". The ACTU reckons he’s "an enigma wrapped in a Bloomberg terminal, wrapped in some apparently well-honed abs."